Posts Tagged planet earth
Sign Today to Preserve the Power of the ePetition
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on June 5, 2012
For the past few years I have been witnessing a steadily increasing torrent of ePetitions making their way into my inbox. Now don’t get me wrong; they are not spam and I have personally invited them to tempt me with their good causes, pressing issues and downright travesty. However, I now find myself a little concerned that if we collectively sign too many, we could initiate the effect of dulling the keen-edged weapon that is the internet petition.
A few years ago, any politician, CEO, media mogul or ignorant bastard would have been gob-smacked to find a petition dropped into their laps (digitally speaking) that was signed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Consequently, it would have been very likely that whoever the petition was aimed at, be it a government or a misbehaving corporation, would have been pretty unnerved to find their dodgy dealings have attracted the attention of so many and galvanised them into action – albeit the small action of filling in a box and clicking send. At this point of its life, the ePetition is a very powerful tool.
It occurred to me just the other day, though, that by signing all of the petitions sent to me, I may soon found myself sitting on a lonely forgotten mountainside with that kid ; you know, the one who kept shouting, “Wolf! Wolf!”
Over the past year I have signed ePetitions on tar sands, the Amazon, protecting the bees, Syrian atrocities (twice), climate change, the NHS, plastic bags, energy prices, bankers bonuses, fracking, ousting Jeremy Hunt, saving the Rhino, saving this and saving that. I’m a true armchair activist, which of course is fine, but where I’ve previously thought I may be doing some good (ePetitions have been proved to work in the past), I may also need to get a little more picky if that do-gooding is to continue.
Of course ePetitions are a great way of sharing an issue that needs addressing and they will still make people sit up and take notice, plus the fact that the bad guys know that so many of us know what they are up to is wonderful.
However, with all the ePetitions in circulation and people signing everything (like I used to) it won’t be long before 500,000 signatures can be simply brushed aside by the people we’re attempting to influence.
I don’t think that ePetitions should stop; not at all. I just think that those of us who do like to take action by right clicking should spare a thought for the on-going potency of these petitions. It would be very easy for them to loose their muscle if we over-use them. In a way, the biggest enemy of the ePetition is (ironically) it’s biggest advantage: the ease with which one can sign them. I have cookies on my computer so that whenever I decide to sign by filling in my email, all I have to do is push ‘g’ and then send. The rest is done for me. Perhaps if we had to undergo a little more work to get these things signed, then we would only sign the stuff that really matters to us.
Failing that, and since coming to the realisation that signing every ePetition that finds its way to my inbox may not be for the best, I have now designed my own personal hierarchy for ePetitions (designed being a very loose word here):
If it’s something I don’t really care about – delete.
If it’s something I care about, but don’t feel strongly enough to sign – spare a thought, delete.
If it’s something I care and feel strongly about – sign.
If I feel it’s imperative that the issue is fixed now – sign and share on facebook and twitter.
If you like, please feel free to follow my easy four-step guide to not dulling the edge of the ePetition and then carry on signing what you feel you must while protecting the integrity of this potentially very powerful tool. Once this is spent, finding another such device to influence the untouchables may take years, so let’s preserve this one while we still can. Thanks.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Oh, and just in case you are wondering; there isn’t in fact a petition to sign here, I just used that in the title to try and attract your attention, but you can say something in the comments box if you’d like. If I get more than 3 comments, I may just change the world…
Why Are We So Behind in the War on Plastic Bags?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Resource Efficiency on February 7, 2012
While the UK may be no eco-angel, it is nonetheless fairly good when it comes to environmental initiatives: a firm governmental backing of renewable energy and domestic recycling programmes are a couple of examples that spring to mind. When it comes to plastic bags, however, we are well behind other countries.
I spend quite a lot of time in the US, and one thing that constantly strikes me on my visits here is how well US businesses have done at lowering the use of plastic bags in their shops. We like to look at America as an environmental bad boy, but when it comes to the environmental plague of plastic bags, we fall far behind them. Of course there are still plastic bags issued in the US, but the majority of shops I have visited recently are giving away paper bags: Walgreen’s, Whole Foods, Crate and Barrel, Victoria’s Secret (ahem) and even Walmart – yes Walmart – have gone down the paper bag route.
In France – another country not really known for its eco-credentials – their biggest supermarket, Carrefour, now charges for plastic bags. So what’s wrong with the British retailers?
If you contact any supermarket about this matter, they will give you their usual spiel about how they are taking the plastic bag issue seriously, doing their bit, blah, blah, blah… What they really mean is they’re paying lip service, but can’t actually be bothered to tackle the problem properly.
Anyway… my reason for this post isn’t simply to have a moan (my usual reason for reaching for the keyboard), but to share a government petition that I think deserves our attention. It reads as follows:
17 billion plastic bags a year are given to British consumers. The average Briton accepts 5 times a weeks. 200 million tonnes of plastic is produced worldwide and 10% ends up in the ocean. When plastic bags get into the ocean they can entangle, suffocate and even kill marine animals. Plastic doesn’t biodegrade, it just breaks up into smaller pieces. The number of plastic bags issued by UK supermarkets in the past year has risen by 333 million. Plastic bags are becoming a big problem and there are better solutions! Instead we should have reusable cotton bags/recyclable paper bags/biodegradable starch based bags. Banish the bags and go with reusable/biodegradable ones instead! If we want to cut the amount of waste sent to landfill this is the big step forward…
These bags are menace to the planet and apart from offering meagre rewards as an incentive, UK supermarkets seem adamant on sticking to their current polices.
Ideally we should all be using reusable bags when we go shopping, but that’s not always possible, and besides, it’s unfair to place the entire obligation for this on the consumer. The retailer also has a duty here.
So assuming there will always be a necessity for retailers to provide bags, the natural alternative is for the traditional polyethylene bags to be replaced with paper ones. Now nobody can argue that the production of paper is without its own environmental impacts; but it’s much better than plastic. It doesn’t use fossil fuels to manufacture, the primary component can be gained from renewable resources and – most importantly – when discarded, the paper will biodegrade, causing far less damage to the natural environment.
So that’s it. If you’re a reader of this blog, you don’t need me to labour on about the perils of polyethylene. All you need to do is go and sign the petition and get the government to put pressure on the retailers. We live in one of the great democracies of the world… let’s use that voter power.
Sign it here. Thanks.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Why Can’t Creationists Just Accept That They’re Wrong?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on January 9, 2012
I have recently watched a number of anti-evolution/anti-big bang videos created by creationists (pardon the pun), and I cannot believe that people can be so blinded by faith.
The videos I’m referring to are from a Youtube user I follow, Potholer 54, and are all nominees for his annual Crocoduck Awards. In these videos we have a bunch of creationists who are all trying to persuade us that evolution is fake and that they can prove it; which of course not one of them manages to do.
My reason for putting pen to paper – in the digital sense – is because I was aghast at what some of these guys are trying to convince us of and, apart from shouting at the computer, the only other outlet for my frustration is this blog.
So, what is it that’s got me so annoyed? Well here are a few of the choice moments:
• A filmmaker positioned in the entrance hall to what is obviously a Christian convention asking the delegates how old they think the Earth is. Well duh! Obviously they’re all going to say it’s 6000 years old. And why is that? Because, apparently, if you add up all the years mentioned in the bible, it comes to 6000 years. Therefore, the Earth can only be 6000 years old because it’s written so in the scriptures. Yeah ok. It’s also written in the scriptures that a virgin had a baby and that, many years later, after being thoroughly crucified by the Romans (masters of execution of the time) that very same baby was able to resurrect himself enough and hold a conversation with his virgin mother. Right.
• Then we have a guy who says that the big bang never happened because all evidence for this is based on the Oort Cloud. He argues that it’s impossible for the Oort Cloud to exist because all evidence alluding to it is flimsy and, more importantly, no one has ever seen the Oort Cloud. Hence, he says, the big bang never happened and there must be a creator being instead. I put to this guy via his comments box that no one has ever seen the creator either (except in a story) and that, by his own argument, the creator cannot exist either. I got no reply.
• There’s Steve Harvey, who thinks all atheists are idiots and can’t understand how humans evolved from monkeys, if we still have monkeys today. Sorry, but who are the idiots?
• Then there are blokes – yes I say blokes; plural – who revel in telling us they find it impossible to make life by recreating the conditions similar to an early Earth in a test tube, or in one instance, a snow globe… yes a snow globe. Therefore it has been proven that life on Earth couldn’t evolve from simple proteins, amino acids etc. I mean how could it? If you can’t create life inside a snow globe, that has to be proof doesn’t it?
• In the first video there’s even a guy who is thinks he’s proving that there has to be a creator using the ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg’ argument as if he thinks no body out there can answer this question.
I could go on and on with these examples, but what I really want to talk about is why these guys feel that it’s so important to disprove evolution. If you are a true believer in God, then why can you not accept that perhaps He didn’t create the Earth and all life upon it? Does that truly undermine His ability to still be God. Well… I guess it does actually. Ok, so that’s the question posed in the title answered then. But there are still some things about anti-evolutionists that wind me up.
For example, an underlying theme of these videos is that it’s wrong to preach that evolution is factual because it has never been proved. Ok, for one, evolution has been proved over the last 200 years by the collection and assimilation of EVIDENCE. What is it about the creator story (Adam and Eve, the Earth created in 6 days, etc.) that seems to have people thinking that has been proved. Excuse me while I just bang my head on the desk… ah, that’s better.
It makes me laugh when the biggest anti-evolution argument appears to be a lack of evidence: “it’s only a theory”, “answer me this”, “answer me that”, but when you ask a creationist for their evidence, they will invariably point you in the direction of the bible. That’s it? That’s all they’ve got? And they accuse evolution of an acute lack of evidence? Oh please.
One guy in these videos is angry that a science teacher would dare to challenge the minds of 12-year olds by teaching them about evolution and allowing them to make their choices as to what they want to believe. As far as I’m aware, science in general feels that it’s fine to believe whatever you want; if you have faith and don’t believe in evolution, fine. However there are teachers out there who teach that God created the world, and if you believe in evolution you should be burned at the stake. Well, that seems fair I guess.
To me these arguments reek of desperation. I wonder if, deep down, half of these guys are saying what they do because they truly believe it, or just because they feel they have to. I’ve got nothing against people having a faith and I can see how truly uplifting it can be for many. But this banging on about evolution being a load of nonsense when the counter argument is based purely on faith just bewilders me.
Do go and watch some of these videos, but be prepared; they will wind you up…
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of Charles Darwin, Lisricka and someone called Anon
Perhaps Melting Icebergs Are A Good Thing…
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on January 2, 2012
At the fear of going against the environmental grain, I have been wondering recently if perhaps large sections of ice melting away from the poles may not be such a bad thing. No, I haven’t crossed over to the Dark Side; please read on and I’ll explain my thinking.
First of all; if any of you have read Gaia Theory by James Lovelock, my idea may be easier to comprehend. If not, then I will quickly explain what this notion is about as it’s fundamental to my idea. Well actually, I’ll let somebody else explain it, as they’ll be far more succinct than I ever could be:
“The (Gaia) theory asserts that living organisms and their inorganic surroundings have evolved together as a single living system that greatly affects the chemistry and conditions of Earth’s surface. Some scientists believe that this “Gaian system” self-regulates global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors in an “automatic” manner. Earth’s living system appears to keep conditions on our planet just right for life to persist.”
Ok. So the Earth is a self-regulating system that does its best to control the conditions on the planet so as to maintain life in this symbiotic relationship.
Some may argue – and many have argued – that as humans we have got out of control, gone beyond the Gaia System and that we are now throwing massive spanners into the works in the form of excessive greenhouse gases, pollution, deforestation, expansion, etc. However, Gaia is strong, adaptable and, like any good guardian, is doing her best to keep the planet from going all-to-pot.
Ok, I hear you ask, but what has this got to do with putting a positive spin on melting ice caps?
Well; let’s look at out bodies as similar self-regulating systems (which of course they are):
If we are too hot, our body has a natural countermeasure to cool itself down in the form of sweat. Agreed? Good.
If that doesn’t work, then a nice cool refreshing gin and tonic should do the trick… and what do you add to the glass to cool down your gin and tonic? That’s right. Ice.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
So then, if the Earth is a self-regulating system and it feels it’s getting too hot, particularly around the oceanic areas, maybe adding a drop or two of ice could prove be a prudent form of action. Returning to the thought posed by the title of this post, one has to ask the question that if the Earth wasn’t dumping large chunks of ice into an ever-warming ocean, what difference would that make to global temperature rise? Do we actually need these influxes of massive chunks of ice to prevent the oceans overheating and triggering runaway climate change?
Now before you get angry and think that I am irresponsibly spreading anti-climate science clatter please just bear in mind that (a) this is only a thought, (b) I am still a firm believer in the dangers of climate change and a firm advocate for action, (c) not nearly enough people read my blog for this to become a mainstream notion.
The optimistic side of me is saying that this is a brilliant form of cooling by the Gaia System and is buying us enough time to sort our act out and stop the harm we are inflicting on the planet and therefore to ourselves and our future generations. The less optimistic and slightly more realistic side of me is saying that this melting ice is simply a symptom of us warming the planet faster than it can cope with and is a harbinger of dangerous times to come. The highly pessimistic side of me is saying, yes, this is proof of the Gaia System trying to cool itself down but that’s of no help to us because if Gaia feels she needs to keep melting ice into the oceans to cool herself then we’re still buggered and we can kiss goodbye to the majority of our built environment and farmland to the water. Make no mistake; Gaia exists for the good of the planet, not the good of Humanity. If the Earth has to cool itself down, a losing a few billion humans in the process will not deter it one iota.
Having said this however, I hope you will take away the thought that although the idea of more and more ice melting into the sea is not appealing; perhaps a greater power is in fact looking after us and giving us that second chance to make amends. Let’s just make sure we use that second chance eh?
Happy New Year to you all!
GR
The book Gaia Theory is well worth a read and had a profound effect on me personally. But in case you want a bit more of an in-depth explanation of Gaia Theory right now, try this link so some text written by James Lovelock, the author of Gaia Theory.
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of Jose Tejo, Jan Martin Will and Tom Dowd
Good News! But It Was Well Hidden Amongst The Bad News
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change, News on November 14, 2011
You may have read an article in the Guardian this week (or elsewhere) telling us that greenhouse gas emissions are up to the levels predicted in only the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios. So despite the decades of warnings, it appears that we’re still ploughing headlong into self-destruction. Oh well, no surprise there.
Normally, I would relish writing a post on this and why it’s going to be the death of us all, and how the planet’s doomed, etc, etc. However, I am not feeling too good this week, and being in such a fragile state, I don’t actually want to linger on the bad news. Instead I want you to read a more uplifting paragraph from the same article. (Plus, I am using this as an excuse to be lazy and just settling for a little re-blogging).
First of all, just to keep you up to speed, here is the crux of the original story: The latest figures that show the levels of greenhouse gases humanity is chucking into the atmosphere are way up there with the worst case scenarios forecast in all the climate models and predictions. In other words… we’re buggered. But like I said; I can’t be bothered with that right about now.
The good news I wanted to share with you is this:
“The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8% below 1990 levels”. (I personally think this should be front-page news, but the media doesn’t do happy stories, does it?)
So you see? We can do it. There is a ray of hope. Enough said. That’s it for this post… I’m off now to suffer in the throws of my man-flu. Peace.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photo courtesy of Max Blain
